Bill Maher’s “Religulous” Trailer

Leave it to Bill Maher to use all the crazy people to make religion look ridiculous. I didn’t see Billy Graham in there, or Franklin Graham, or Pat Robertson (he’s pretty lucid during an interview), or one of those people are highly education or scientists who are pretty rational and still believe in God and/or the bible.

Apparently you’ve seen the full movie and these claims are based on facts? The Grahams don’t appear in the film, nor does Pat Robertson, no believer scientists—you know all this for a fact? Did you time-travel to 10/3/2008? Any tips about what to watch out for between now and then? Is gas $8.00 a gallon in the USA?

I mean, hey, if you want a comedy, hey, by all means, show the most ridiculous people you can find. But it won’t change any minds, because all rational people who are believers/non-believers know people like me, normal law abiding citizens, funny, rational, cool, hip (nah…....nerd more like it) who HAPPEN TO BELIEVE in the bible.

My position on this issue is this: The delusion of religious belief runs from it being a very mild delusion that most rational people simply compartmentalize outside of their work-a-day functioning world, to the severely deluded who are firmly entrenched that not only is their belief system accurate, but their gods even speak to them directly and tell them what to do.

The average person who goes to church every once in awhile is an example of the former, while a jihadist flying a plane full of screaming people into a skyscraper is an exmaple of the latter. But make no mistake: The category is a broad umbrella, but both types (and all in betweeners) are under the same umbrella

Hey, that’s the way it is. And there are a billion or two like me out there. But here is the bottom line. At the end of the day, really, I…..think…..Bill Maher (though I’m fond of his ability to make me laugh) and all you atheists are ridiculous.

Bill Maher doesn’t say he doesn’t believe in a god by the way. He said he thinks religion is ridiculous. Do you actually know Maher’s beliefs?

I mean, COME ONE, a creator is self evident to you just by looking at our universe and the myrid complexities of life, I mean, COME ON, don’t be ridiculous!

An undemonstrated assertion isn’t a fact. You’re argument is jettisoned as you reach a conclusion. You cite the universe as complex, you cite the myriad complexities of life—and then you posit a more complex being who could design it all in the first place as the cause. I prefer something more consistent in the line of logic. If the universe is complex and needs an explanation, and life within the universe is complex and needs an explanation, and you assert something more complex as that explanation, I’m forced to ask you why you’ve abandoned the core foundation of your own assertion?

I watch Bill Maher “religilously” so therefore, I probably know his views about as good as any other viewer. I do know that he was a brilliant comedy and he went the way of many comedians, he started taking himself seriously. Without a degree in political science, years of experience as a diplomat, a worker at the UN, or even any time as a congressional aide, he set out to be an authority on politicals with a very partisan twist: anything conservative is bad and republicans are evil and they are both incompetent and geniously evil at the same time, they cannot be trusted. But on the hand, his views on liberals and democrats take a different road: they are honerable, they have the best intentions, they misspoke, they got drunk and had a bad night, it was just an intern!, they’re facts are correct, they didn’t lie-they simply deferred on the truth, it wasn’t that bad, it was a failure with a silver lining, etc.

Bill’s great though, I just wonder how much influence he really has. I mean, there is not a straw argument he did not love when demonizing the social and political opposition. That being said, he’s a funny guy and very likeable, even when he’s slapping you in the face. I wouldn’t complain if he hanging at the same party. But then again, we probably go to different parties. Then again, I haven’t been to a party in years! Unless you consider the yearly family superbowl thing a party.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

I’m just curious about your statements, which seem very much generalizations. I’ve no particular vested interest in defending Maher as I am in coherent arguments. Don’t take this so much as a defense of Maher as it is asking you to account for your claims.

Let’s ask this one again:

Apparently you’ve seen the full movie and these claims are based on facts? The Grahams don’t appear in the film, nor does Pat Robertson, no believer scientists—you know all this for a fact? Did you time-travel to 10/3/2008? Any tips about what to watch out for between now and then? Is gas $8.00 a gallon in the USA?

TheChampion, can you answer this simple question above?

I watch Bill Maher “religilously” so therefore, I probably know his views about as good as any other viewer. I do know that he was a brilliant comedy and he went the way of many comedians, he started taking himself seriously.

I’m not sure I understand this claim either. The best comedians are able to cite topical events and show them to us in a funny, unique light. Maher does this well, but he is also not simply up there talking by himself. He has interesting guests on all the time, and he functions as a moderator. So do Hannity and Colmes, Keith Olberman, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Mathews, etc., and I’ll wager they “take themselves seriously” as well. It’s interesting that if someone is a comedian initially, he or she has to toe some imaginary line else they are “taking themselves seriously”. I think if you look at some of the best comics ever (Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lewis Black, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart)—you’ll find thoughtful men who are very good at analyzing key areas of social and political paradigms; and indeed, it is this skill that elevates them into the “best comics” level.

Without a degree in political science, years of experience as a diplomat, a worker at the UN, or even any time as a congressional aide

I don’t see that any of those jobs or degrees are required to become a political commentator. From Maher’s bio on wikipedia:

Maher grew up in River Vale, New Jersey and graduated from Pascack Hills High School in Montvale, New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Arts in English and History from Cornell University in 1978.

he set out to be an authority on politicals with a very partisan twist: anything conservative is bad and republicans are evil and they are both incompetent and geniously evil at the same time, they cannot be trusted. But on the hand, his views on liberals and democrats take a different road: they are honerable, they have the best intentions, they misspoke, they got drunk and had a bad night, it was just an intern!, they’re facts are correct, they didn’t lie-they simply deferred on the truth, it wasn’t that bad, it was a failure with a silver lining, etc.

Obviously you don’t watch Bill Maher—he is relentlessly hard on Democrats, calling them “spineless” and “cowards” quite regularly (mainly because they are). Maher takes both sides to task for their inability to be energy conscious and food aware. He’s not always right of course (no one is), but he raises good questions and is not afraid of the unpleasant truth.

Bill’s great though, I just wonder how much influence he really has.

Why is that relevant? since you mention him earlier in “Expelled”, I wonder how much influence Ben Stein has, or the whole ID movement for that matter (Dembski, Denyse O’Leary, et al). Maher’s comments are very often very true, and he shows his sources.

If you sense he’s demonizing one side more than the other, you might want to consider the actions of the side that’s coming off looking worse. Maybe there’s something to it.

Apparently you’ve seen the full movie and these claims are based on facts? The Grahams don’t appear in the film, nor does Pat Robertson, no believer scientists—you know all this for a fact? Did you time-travel to 10/3/2008? Any tips about what to watch out for between now and then? Is gas $8.00 a gallon in the USA?

TheChampion, can you answer this simple question above?

Well of course I have not seen the movie. But you know how these left wingers work in the movie business. Michael Moore is a prime example, shady facts, squewed logic, slight of hand, smoke and mirrors. But when the moderist experts foist thier gaze upon the reasoning, logic, and weight of facts, these left wing docs do not usually hold up. And, if I might add, there has been a cottage industry of left wing distortion within the documentary business for about 6 years or so, if ya know what I mean.

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 01:32 AM

I’m not sure I understand this claim either. The best comedians are able to cite topical events and show them to us in a funny, unique light. Maher does this well, but he is also not simply up there talking by himself. He has interesting guests on all the time, and he functions as a moderator. So do Hannity and Colmes, Keith Olberman, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Mathews, etc., and I’ll wager they “take themselves seriously” as well. It’s interesting that if someone is a comedian initially, he or she has to toe some imaginary line else they are “taking themselves seriously”. I think if you look at some of the best comics ever (Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lewis Black, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart)—you’ll find thoughtful men who are very good at analyzing key areas of social and political paradigms; and indeed, it is this skill that elevates them into the “best comics” level.

Jon Stewart????? Hello, you’ve got to be kidding. Is he even that funny?

I think, you sir (or madam) are giving more logical weight to these men and their ability to humilate themselves as court jesters. They are, court jesters, most of these stripe teeter on the brink of personal disaster, usually. They are there to make us laugh at ourselves, or cry, or to have an escape from the “real” world. I mean, pssssfft, ya right. WHAT…..everrrrrrrrr.

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 01:32 AM

I don’t see that any of those jobs or degrees are required to become a political commentator. From Maher’s bio on wikipedia:

Maher grew up in River Vale, New Jersey and graduated from Pascack Hills High School in Montvale, New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Arts in English and History from Cornell University in 1978.

Whoa…..are you playing or what? Cornell…..HELLO….is this true. My respect level for Maher just went up about 100 notches. You’re not joking?

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 01:32 AM

Obviously you don’t watch Bill Maher—he is relentlessly hard on Democrats, calling them “spineless” and “cowards” quite regularly (mainly because they are). Maher takes both sides to task for their inability to be energy conscious and food aware. He’s not always right of course (no one is), but he raises good questions and is not afraid of the unpleasant truth.

Eeeeeh…(bored wave of hand)....no different than Chris Matthews chiding his family (i.e., the dems) for percieved inconsistencies. His venom is reserved for the political opposition only.

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 01:32 AM

Why is that relevant? since you mention him earlier in “Expelled”, I wonder how much influence Ben Stein has, or the whole ID movement for that matter (Dembski, Denyse O’Leary, et al). Maher’s comments are very often very true, and he shows his sources.

If you sense he’s demonizing one side more than the other, you might want to consider the actions of the side that’s coming off looking worse. Maybe there’s something to it.

Maher’s comments are very often very true? Eeeeeeeeh (bored wave of hand), I don’t about that. His insight leads one down the rabbit trail of his straw argument, with an opposing view being ridiculous.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

But when the moderist experts foist thier gaze upon the reasoning, logic, and weight of facts, these left wing docs do not usually hold up.

I think that’s a bias on your part. “Sicko” seems to have withstood a massive amount of critical analysis.

And, if I might add, there has been a cottage industry of left wing distortion within the documentary business for about 6 years or so, if ya know what I mean.

No, I don’t know what you mean. I do know there’s been clearly exposed distortion and lies coming from the present administration in the White House, and I’m not getting this information from any documentaries at all. As recently as June 5th, 2008:

Jon Stewart????? Hello, you’ve got to be kidding. Is he even that funny?

Generally, the marketplace (the audience) is the arbiter of such things—not your personal opinion or mine. Given Jon Stewart’s tenure on “The Daily Show”, and given the popularity of the show, and given his invitations on numerous “serious” shows, and given that “The Daily Show” sometimes reports news the MSM doesn’t cover at all, I’d say he’s likely to be considered a 1st tier humorist. I rarely watch The Daily Show myself, so I’m not defending his skills as a comedian as a fan, because I’m not a fan.

I think, you sir (or madam) are giving more logical weight to these men and their ability to humilate themselves as court jesters. They are, court jesters, most of these stripe teeter on the brink of personal disaster, usually. They are there to make us laugh at ourselves, or cry, or to have an escape from the “real” world. I mean, pssssfft, ya right. WHAT…..everrrrrrrrr.

The ad hominen (that they teeter on prsonal disaster) is another unfounded speculation. Can you back up this claim?

I disagree that these particular people are merely jibing fools. I think the tenor of their shows are quantitatively different from sitcoms or lounge act comedians. While he can be achingly funny, these guys are not Don Rickles—they invariably focus on political events, and are known as political satirists. Political satirists have to be knowledgeable about politics and society at large, and they have to be able to present the truth of things in order for them to be successful.

In other words, they have to be able to say things we won’t say because of our biases.

Whoa…..are you playing or what? Cornell…..HELLO….is this true. My respect level for Maher just went up about 100 notches. You’re not joking?

I don’t know if you’re being serious here or not. It’s his curriculum vitae.

Eeeeeh…(bored wave of hand)....no different than Chris Matthews chiding his family (i.e., the dems) for percieved inconsistencies. His venom is reserved for the political opposition only.

So when you are presented with evidence that doesn’t support your bias, you dismiss it, despite it’s being true? Again, you don’t seem to be a “religious” watcher of the show.

Maher’s comments are very often very true? Eeeeeeeeh (bored wave of hand), I don’t about that. His insight leads one down the rabbit trail of his straw argument, with an opposing view being ridiculous.

Here’s a brief, off-the-top-of-my-head litany of comments that he’s said that are true:

Our food is injected with all sorts of chemicals that are not healthy for us.

We as a nation are over medicated.

The Bush Administration did nothing to help the looming energy crisis.

The Pope protected child molesting priests.

I could go on. And don’t forget, he has guests who represent both sides of the equations and he gives them equal time to speak.

Okay so first off we can agree that not having seen the flick, you have no idea what is or isn’t in the movie, so you’re speculating.

No, I know. I know. I KNOW, I know, i know…..

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

I think that’s a bias on your part. “Sicko” seems to have withstood a massive amount of critical analysis.

I don’t know about that. Michael Medved shredded it. But if it does pass the test of time, it will be about time. Till this one, Moore has riddled his fairy tales with movies, or visa versa (depending on how you look at it).

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

No, I don’t know what you mean. I do know there’s been clearly exposed distortion and lies coming from the present administration in the White House, and I’m not getting this information from any documentaries at all.

Oh come now, the business is riddled with propaganda. It has never been this bad ever. Times are scary. People have ulterior motives, agendas, and worse, are using subterfuge to get achieve their aims. Scary times, I tell ya!

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

The ad hominen (that they teeter on prsonal disaster) is another unfounded speculation. Can you back up this claim?

I disagree that these particular people are merely jibing fools. I think the tenor of their shows are quantitatively different from sitcoms or lounge act comedians. While he can be achingly funny, these guys are not Don Rickles—they invariably focus on political events, and are known as political satirists. Political satirists have to be knowledgeable about politics and society at large, and they have to be able to present the truth of things in order for them to be successful.

Ahhhh, I don’t know. Ok, I’m in a giving mood. You win (the lakers lose, so who cares…about anything, tonight…..)

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

Here’s a brief, off-the-top-of-my-head litany of comments that he’s said that are true:

Our food is injected with all sorts of chemicals that are not healthy for us.

We as a nation are over medicated.

The Bush Administration did nothing to help the looming energy crisis.

The Pope protected child molesting priests.

I could go on. And don’t forget, he has guests who represent both sides of the equations and he gives them equal time to speak.

You can dismiss that if you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Want ya want, a medal? So what. Who cares about anything…....tonight…...

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

These are a wide swath of critics from all walks of life. They aren’t nincompoops or particularly political. Their lives revolve around film, not politics and the praise seems very consistent.

By the way—

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—9%

(That’s not a typo. It’s really nine percent out of a possible one hundred percent.)

But if it does pass the test of time, it will be about time.

“Bowling For Columbine” came to the conclusion that it’s the news media that whips up people’s xenophobia, which is demonstrated by comparing two cities side by side (neighboring cities): Detroit vs Windsor Canada. Both have a lot of similarities (including racial blending, blue collar populace, lots of guns and hunters, etc.) and yet Windsor has barely any crime, while Detroit is a war zone. A key difference is the racial and sensationalist aspect of the local news media. I think that such an argument might fall right into line with the average right-of-central worldview: It’s the news media’s fault.

Till this one, Moore has riddled his fairy tales with movies, or visa versa (depending on how you look at it).

It’s hard to make that argument when you are watching Moore asking a Senator why his kid isn’t in Iraq, and the Senator runs away. The footage is what it is, unless you are suggesting that it’s all computer generated?

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

Oh come now, the business is riddled with propaganda. It has never been this bad ever. Times are scary. People have ulterior motives, agendas, and worse, are using subterfuge to get achieve their aims. Scary times, I tell ya!

I’ll agree with you if you’re talking about the Bush Administration. You’re spot on.

Richard Pryor—Political-Social Satirist / Train Wreck for awhile, and then suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, which can strike anyone. I agree he had a very messy life, but he cleaned it up towards the end.

John Belushi—Comedic actor, not a political or social satirist.

Chris Farley—Comedic actor, not a political or social satirist.

So 70% of your list are either not political satirists or were not train wrecks. (Without Pryor, who straightened himself out, it would be 25%—Lenny Bruce, who died of a heroin overdose). Not a compelling argument.

Keep The Reason - 17 June 2008 10:41 AM

Ahhhh, I don’t know. Ok, I’m in a giving mood. You win (the lakers lose, so who cares…about anything, tonight…..)

Want ya want, a medal? So what. Who cares about anything…....tonight…...

Newbie here. Firstly, as a former, ensconced member of a devout Christian walk I am quite excited about my membership on the Sam Harris forum. I am a member of only one other forum, which really has nothing to do, for the most part, with the subject matters presented here. So the freedom this forum will grant me in speaking freely about my misgivings relative to my Christian heritage and upbringing will be a little foreign to me. Thus I am truly thankful for this opportunity.

I saw “Religulous” in the theater (by myself, I might add). It resonated with me in quite a deep level. But one part in particular knocked me on my ass. The film listed the number of “saviors” predating Christ, each of whom experienced the same exact life as the one depicted about Jesus in the Bible. If this is true it completely turns Christianity upside down. Does it not? At any rate, I have not extended the necessary study time to confirm its veracity. Does anyone here on the board have any extensive knowledge in this regard?